I've paid my taxes for 40 some years.
I don't like paying theirs too.
You just accept it.

That's not what I asked. Reread the questions.

[Nesster]

So you would rather we (US taxpayers) pay the tab for this?

Never said that at all. But legally…

Which amounts to what exactly? I asked a similar question above: if not BP 'voulnteering', and not a 'taxpayer bailout', then it's the courts, which will drag on forever and make only the laywers rich.

Unless you have a solution in mind?

[shooz]

He has a mind?
Could have fooled me.

Which amounts to what exactly? I asked a similar question above: if not BP 'volunteering', and not a 'taxpayer bailout', then it's the courts, which will drag on forever and make only the lawyers rich.

Unless you have a solution in mind?

If I were in Hayward's spot I would do whatever necessary to make it right. I would also do what is necessary to keep my company viable. (Without future income it's hard to do a lot of anything.) Without government "persuasion". It's just the right thing to do. However, what I would do, and what is LEGALLY required are 2 different things. That being said, there is a time for the "persuasion" and a time for action. Obamarama is worried about the blame and whatnot. He should be concerned with, and acting upon, and getting people involved that actually can help. So far he's turned them down. Get it stopped. Then we can sort out who's ass needs kicking. Now is not the time for the legal wrangling. Now is the time to stop the flow of oil.

[wildman]

If the law says they're responsible for 75 million and they are now putting 20 billion into a fund after a meeting with OBO there are only three possible reasons:

1. They have seen the error of their ways and have graciously and benevolently,
out of the kindness of their hearts, donated the money.
or
2. The president made a deal with them in which they, as well as who knows how many of the president's cronies,
will somehow profit from the whole mess in the long run.
or
3. The president coerced them in some way.

4. BP knows to a metaphysical certainty that after creating the worse human disaster in American history, that if they don't do something real and substantial that they risk losing the world's largest and most lucrative petroleum market forever.

[GeneV]

This belonged in this thread. Joe Barton Would LikeTo Apologize is great fun.

In my humble opinion, not only was this a boneheaded political move for Barton to make this statement, it is nonsense. Let us assume that all the federal government can actually do is probably to file civil or criminal charges, which will take years to resolve. It is completely proper for the parties to such a suit to have discussions on lessening damages and possibly avoiding costly litigation before it happens. Getting relief prior to going to court under threat of litigation is what good lawyers try to do. Even assuming that the government's remedies are so limited, Barton's perception of the government acting to get pre-litigation relief for a situation for which BP has already admitted responsibility, as some kind of a shakedown is without any connection to reality.

If BP had wanted to knock one out of the PR park, their representative would have responded to Joe Barton by saying "Congressman, we do not consider paying the money we promised to make this right to be a shakedown. The only apology necessary is the one we have made."

---------- Post added 06-18-2010 at 11:02 AM ----------

maybe I missed the part of the Constitution that gives the PPresident of the United States or for that matter even congress the power to demand a private corporation put aside money for a something. I would also like to see the clause that gives them the ability to demand that they no give out dividends to the shareholders as well?

So, are you saying that the government has no power to file suit against a private entity for violating environmental laws? How about prosecuting for civil and criminal penalties? Changing regulations to make it tougher to get new permits? If they do, then why don't they have the power to use threats of enforcement to obtain relief for the country before going to court?

---------- Post added 06-18-2010 at 11:13 AM ----------

If the law says they're responsible for 75 million and they are now putting 20 billion into a fund after a meeting with OBO there are only three possible reasons:

1. They have seen the error of their ways and have graciously and benevolently,
out of the kindness of their hearts, donated the money.
or
2. The president made a deal with them in which they, as well as who knows how many of the president's cronies,
will somehow profit from the whole mess in the long run.
or
3. The president coerced them in some way.

I think we can safely eliminate the first possibility. Given that there hasn't been a president in recent history (with the possible exception of Carter)
who cared anything about the law or ethics, the odds are evenly split on numbers 2 and 3; but the safest bet is that it was a combination of the two.

I'd like to hear some hard evidence for number two, Jim, before going off on that kind of accusation based upon nothing more than the fact that many other politicians are corrupt.

There is nothing wrong with number 3 if it is directed at a legitimate end. Most law enforcement results from people complying because they perceive a threat from the government that enforcement action will result. And as pointed out by another poster, there is an element of option 1 involved here as well: the know they need to do business here and it makes good sense to act responsibly.

Honestly, the "darned if you do" thread is appropriate for this. Obama is ineffective if he doesn't do anything, and he is coercive or even corrupt if he does. Is that really fair?

[Rico]

I can not believe the people in favor of this shakedown of BP have been so quick to settle for 20 billion. Why such a small amount? Why not 100 Billion? It all sounds to me like the White House let BP off pretty easy.

But after all out of all the oil companies BP is the Democrats oil company. BP has contributed the most to the Democrats. They have been on board with all the policies put for by the White House like cap and trade. They have pushed this legislation for the White House.

It looks like the White House gave BP a sweet heart deal with 20 billion dollars.

[JeffJS]

That's not what I asked. Reread the questions.

Did you expect different? REALLY?

[shooz]

He responded to my post with questions that had nothing to do with what I said.
I really didn't exect anything more from a person among the most insulting I've seen out here in a while.
Besides? What is he doing? Writing a book? He can leave that part out.

He responded to my post with questions that had nothing to do with what I said.
I really didn't exect anything more from a person among the most insulting I've seen out here in a while.
Besides? What is he doing? Writing a book? He can leave that part out.

All I did was ask you a couple of questions. If you would actually answer them you would then see how it would relate, Alas, you have not. And that leads me to belive that maybe you really don't pay your fair share. Maybe you exaggerate your deductions?

[shooz]

Yeah, right. I claim my cats. Saves me a bundle.

Still has NOTHING to do with my post.
Scroll back and respond to what was said.

Did you get your fish back yet?
How about your salt?

[jeffkrol]

Yes, let's just let the courts do it...........
Future looks bleak for Gulf: Alaska STILL hasn't recovered from Exxon Valdez disaster 21 years later

But sea otters, harlequin ducks, clams and mussels haven't fully recovered, according to the council.
The human toll also persists, especially in hard-hit Cordova, a fishing village that became an outpost of debt, depression and dry-docked boats.
Families that took out six-figure loans to buy valuable fishing permits before the disaster struggle to stay afloat. The mayor committed suicide in 1993, mentioning Exxon in his note.
Many suffering families hitched their financial survival to the $5 billion in punitive damages Exxon was ordered to pay in 1994. But the Supreme Court gutted the amount to $500 million.
After taxes and legal fees, individual payments didn't come close to covering two decades of losses, several fishermen told the Daily News.

QUICK, call in the dyke builders........

[shooz]

Just another tax we get to pay for them.
How much did all those cases cost us?
We're just little people.

[Artesian]

Republican, Under Pressure, Backpedals From Apology to BP - NYTimes.com


good job Joe..............
Love the fox spin..........
BP Stands for 'Bully Pulpit' on Capitol Hill - Video - FoxNews.com

might as well throw this one in:
Right Now - Republicans happy with Barton apology, but disagree on the 'shakedown'

This is what is wrong with the Republicans. I believe what he said is correct and should not apologize for it. What Obama did is wrong and should not have happened. Why should he apologize for what he believes in? Chavez all over. Who needs this?
Get your head out of the sand.
As fas as the sign, the ol dems trick of having someone with a bogus sign is really getting old. It once was funny now it is just sad.
A

---------- Post added 06-20-2010 at 11:00 PM ----------

If the law says they're responsible for 75 million and they are now putting 20 billion into a fund after a meeting with OBO there are only three possible reasons:

1. They have seen the error of their ways and have graciously and benevolently,
out of the kindness of their hearts, donated the money.
or
2. The president made a deal with them in which they, as well as who knows how many of the president's cronies,
will somehow profit from the whole mess in the long run.
or
3. The president coerced them in some way.

I think we can safely eliminate the first possibility. Given that there hasn't been a president in recent history (with the possible exception of Carter)
who cared anything about the law or ethics, the odds are evenly split on numbers 2 and 3; but the safest bet is that it was a combination of the two.

You can bet a deal was made. Obama may be looking at his bid for the next 4 years with the help of the oil companies. The ol Chicago Thugs? Question: Why should all oil companies suffer for the BP mess? Why is there not an investigation into the regulatory MMS? Where were they?
A

[shooz]

You must be one of the BIG people.
Where were you when Bush made all his back room deals?
Watching TV?